|
|
|
|
#1
07-24-2005, 07:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Soloman\'s Formula (from HOH Volume 2)
On page 201 of Harrington on Hold 'Em, Volume 2, a reference is made to Soloman's formula to figure out where you are at in a hand.
You multiply outs by 4, then subtract the excess of the outs above 8 to get an approximate win %. I dont get the formula, neither in concept or practice. Since i dont really need to understand WHY it works, so long as it can be verified, i just need to know what the second part means. In the example we have 15 outs, so: (4 x 15) - (15 - 8), it is the (15-8) portion i dont understand. Is it always -8? If we have 9 outs would it be: (4 x 9) - (9 - 8)? 
|
|
#2
07-24-2005, 10:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Soloman\'s Formula (from HOH Volume 2)
[ QUOTE ]
On page 201 of Harrington on Hold 'Em, Volume 2, a reference is made to Soloman's formula to figure out where you are at in a hand. You multiply outs by 4, then subtract the excess of the outs above 8 to get an approximate win %. I dont get the formula, neither in concept or practice. Since i dont really need to understand WHY it works, so long as it can be verified, i just need to know what the second part means. In the example we have 15 outs, so: (4 x 15) - (15 - 8), it is the (15-8) portion i dont understand. Is it always -8? If we have 9 outs would it be: (4 x 9) - (9 - 8)? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. This gives you 35%, which is close to the actual win percentage with 9 outs, 35.4% The advantage of the Solomon formula over the Rule of Four (where you simply multiply your outs by 4 with two cards to come) is that for hands with many outs, it's much more accurate. For the 13 situations between 8 outs and 20, the rule of four is more accurate than Solomon's rule for 5 situations, Solomon's is more accurate than the rule of four for 6 situations, and they're equally as accurate in the remaining two. While the rule of four can be way off in situations with many outs (with 20 outs, it's off by 12.5%), Solomon's rule can be way off with very few outs (with 1 out, Solomon's rule is off by 7%). Overall, the rule of four is more accurate than Solomon's for 11 out of the 20 scenarios of 1-20 outs, Solomon's more accurate than the rule of four 7 out of those 20, and they are equally as accurate for 2. In general though it seems that if you have fewer than 10-13 outs, use the simpler rule of four. Above that, use Solomon's rule which will be more accurate.
|
|
#3
07-24-2005, 11:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Soloman\'s Formula (from HOH Volume 2)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] On page 201 of Harrington on Hold 'Em, Volume 2, a reference is made to Soloman's formula to figure out where you are at in a hand. You multiply outs by 4, then subtract the excess of the outs above 8 to get an approximate win %. I dont get the formula, neither in concept or practice. Since i dont really need to understand WHY it works, so long as it can be verified, i just need to know what the second part means. In the example we have 15 outs, so: (4 x 15) - (15 - 8), it is the (15-8) portion i dont understand. Is it always -8? If we have 9 outs would it be: (4 x 9) - (9 - 8)? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. This gives you 35%, which is close to the actual win percentage with 9 outs, 35.4% The advantage of the Solomon formula over the Rule of Four (where you simply multiply your outs by 4 with two cards to come) is that for hands with many outs, it's much more accurate. For the 13 situations between 8 outs and 20, the rule of four is more accurate than Solomon's rule for 5 situations, Solomon's is more accurate than the rule of four for 6 situations, and they're equally as accurate in the remaining two. While the rule of four can be way off in situations with many outs (with 20 outs, it's off by 12.5%), Solomon's rule can be way off with very few outs (with 1 out, Solomon's rule is off by 7%). Overall, the rule of four is more accurate than Solomon's for 11 out of the 20 scenarios of 1-20 outs, Solomon's more accurate than the rule of four 7 out of those 20, and they are equally as accurate for 2. In general though it seems that if you have fewer than 10-13 outs, use the simpler rule of four. Above that, use Solomon's rule which will be more accurate. [/ QUOTE ] First, if you truly have 9 outs, or have a made hand and put your foe on 9 outs against yours, it's a 36.36% chance with 2 cards to come, not 35.4%. The difference is using 45 unseen cards v. 47. The reason you use 45 should be obvious. Second, it's easier to use the rule of 4 until 11 outs, then the rule of 3 until 19 outs. So, 12 outs would be 47%, 13 outs 50%, 14 outs 53% until you hit 68% for 19 outs. Using this method, you will never be more than 1.2% wrong (5 outs at 21.2%) . For draws over 19 outs, it really doesn't matter since you are 70% to win with 2 to come and should be pushing all in. Another way to think about it, with 2 to come, 13 outs is even money, 8 outs is closest to 2:1, and 6 outs is 3:1.
|
|
#4
07-24-2005, 11:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Soloman\'s Formula (from HOH Volume 2)
[ QUOTE ]
First, if you truly have 9 outs, or have a made hand and put your foe on 9 outs against yours, it's a 36.36% chance with 2 cards to come, not 35.4%. [/ QUOTE ] I reached for the closest "outs chart" I could find, which happened to be the one in the liner notes of phil gordon's dvd. I don't know why he has it as 35.4%*, but it's not 36.36% either - it's 35%. [ QUOTE ] The difference is using 45 unseen cards v. 47. The reason you use 45 should be obvious. [/ QUOTE ] Not unless you have very amiable opponents who have the habit of showing you their hands before you decide on what to do. *edit: it seems that he calculated it like so: (odds of hitting on 4th st) + (odds of hitting on 5th st) - (odds of hitting both 4th and 5th). Doing this for 9 outs gives you 35.38%.
|
|
#5
07-24-2005, 01:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Soloman\'s Formula (from HOH Volume 2)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The difference is using 45 unseen cards v. 47. The reason you use 45 should be obvious. [/ QUOTE ] Not unless you have very amiable opponents who have the habit of showing you their hands before you decide on what to do. [/ QUOTE ] Before we go any further, take a minute and read the addenda of Barry's book. I happen to agree with him. If you don't, then we'll just agree to disagree.
|
|
#6
07-24-2005, 01:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Soloman\'s Formula (from HOH Volume 2)
[ QUOTE ]
Before we go any further, take a minute and read the addenda of Barry's book. I happen to agree with him. If you don't, then we'll just agree to disagree. [/ QUOTE ] p. 286: "In a heads-up pot, if you know your hand, your opponent's hand, and the flop, how many possible combinations are there for the turn and river?" (emphasis mine) I agree with him also, which is why 36.36% is incorrect in this case, since we don't know our opponent's hand.
|
|
#7
07-24-2005, 10:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Soloman\'s Formula (from HOH Volume 2)
[ QUOTE ]
then subtract the excess of the outs above 8 to get it is the (15-8) portion i dont understand. Is it always -8? [/ QUOTE ] Please tell me you are kidding... or that you're just learning English as a second language
|
|
#8
07-25-2005, 02:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Soloman\'s Formula (from HOH Volume 2)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] then subtract the excess of the outs above 8 to get it is the (15-8) portion i dont understand. Is it always -8? [/ QUOTE ] Please tell me you are kidding... or that you're just learning English as a second language [/ QUOTE ] Please stop taking low blows at people until you learn that riding streaks in craps is pointless.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
